1951-04-04

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I trust I may have the indulgence of the house for a moment or two to make a short statement.
Today is the second anniversary of an historic event, the signing of the North Atlantic treaty on April 4, 1949. We entered into the treaty because we believed it was necessary for the continuing preservation of the freedom and the heritage of the Atlantic nations. It was necessary because the Soviet union had prevented the security council of the United Nations from discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace, and1 because a grave atmosphere of disillusion, anxiety and tension had been created by the enforced transformation of one eastern European state after another into a satellite of the Soviet union.
Against this background of the growing threat of communist imperialism, the North Atlantic treaty was concluded. In the two years of -its existence, by increasing the ability of the Atlantic powers to resist aggression, important steps have been taken to lessen the likelihood of war. In the military field an integrated force has been established under General Eisenhower as supreme commander allied powers in Europe. The principle of mutual aid has been revived, and Canada has shared in the mutual aid program by transferring military equipment to a number of our European allies and by providing places for our North Atlantic partners in our military and air training establishments.
The strength and determination of the North Atlantic allies to resist aggression have been increased with the growth of their deterrent military strength and of their feeling of a community of interests, political, economic and cultural. While the primary purpose of the treaty is security, the development of mutual understanding which is taking place serves a deeper purpose which has a special appeal for Canadians; the ultimate creation of a great community of free nations working together for a lasting peace.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this house will wish to join in the expression of satisfaction that, within two years of its existence, the north Atlantic alliance has already advanced far toward the building of a strong partnership for the preservation not only of peace but of that particular civilization which we know as western civilization. There is no thought of suggesting racial or other superiority, but it is necessary for us to remember that our own civilization came from the nations of western Europe, and that the survival of that civilization is inseparably associated with theirs. Whatever disappointments there may have been during the past two years, whatever concern there may be about the evidence of temporary misunderstanding from time to time, the fact is that day by day this association is becoming stronger. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has pointed out, the very steps that are necessary to build the military strength of these nations for the advancement of freedom and the maintenance of peace will in themselves lay a wider foundation for deeper and closer association throughout the years ahead.
We all hope, we all have increasing reason for confidence, that peace in the broader field of world affairs may be maintained, even though there is real war at this moment. All of us like to think that beyond the achievement of peace itself and the preservation of our freedom there will be greater understanding between nations which will make it possible for us to associate ourselves in the days ahead with those other parts of the world which are not now embraced within the North Atlantic treaty. If the United Nations organization, which is the one ultimate hope of stability, sanity and peace within our generation, is to have any enduring strength, that strength will rest upon the success of the efforts of the north Atlantic powers. What we as north Atlantic nations achieve will therefore be not only to our own advantage but to the advantage of the whole world including those nations now enslaved within the soviet empire. While we all must keep our eyes on the practical considerations of the real world in which we live, there is always in our minds that ultimate ideal of the parliament of man, the federation of the world,

North Atlantic Treaty
where all nations can join their efforts in the common cause of peace and the advancement of peaceful pursuits.
This pact is for that purpose. Already much has been done, and today in the heart of every one of us is the hope that it will lay the foundation for that wider fellowship of nations and of humanity throughout the world to which all thoughts are directed in the minds of decent men and women.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we of this group join in recognizing the significance of this day as the second anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic treaty. We recall that this is a treaty set up within the framework of the United Nations, and I was particularly glad to notice the reference that was made in that connection by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
We of this group have indicated from the start our support of the purposes of the North Atlantic treaty. There are, however, two or three aspects of that treaty in connection with which we should like to see more activity. For example, we should like to see greater action in respect of economic aid, a greater emphasis, indeed, upon the terms of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. Further, we should like to see more effective co-operation in trade and monetary policies amongst the various nations of the north Atlantic community. Indeed, we feel that this is necessary if the high purposes of the treaty are to be achieved. We also feel that if we are to carry out our commitments under the treaty we shall have to find ways to limit the rising costs of defence production within our own country.
Finally, I should like to say that out of the experience that the western nations have had recently in the Far East, it is apparent that steps should be taken, in advance, to make sure that there is complete civilian and governmental control over diplomatic matters, and that such matters will not be left in the hands of the military leaders appointed under the provisions of article 9 of the treaty.
It seemed to us that on this occasion, when we recognize the significance of what was done two years ago, attention should be drawn to these other points that I have mentioned.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit movement is all in favour of co-operation for the achievement of the fine ideals which have been talked of ad nauseam for the last ten years. But the technique whereby Social Credit believes these objectives can be attained is widely different from the technique which seems to be envisaged by those who have thus far
participated in this little debate. The Social Credit movement looks upon the British commonwealth as having been the ideal pattern through which to attain co-operation in all major matters affecting the welfare of mankind. It will be recalled that no member of the British commonwealth was called upon to surrender in the slightest degree the sovereignty over its affairs.
We wish to warn against too ready acceptance of proposals that seem to be emanating from one place and another in relation to the Atlantic pact, and which seem to be designed to give to some central body power over the economic development and other essentially domestic matters within the various nations participating in the Atlantic pact. If that sort of thing is attained, it will be a sorry day for the world.
I am really surprised at how little we hear about the British commonwealth and the British empire organization which took us so safely through so long a period of the history of the world. I am also surprised that people can talk so enthusiastically in support of plans which have already, since their inception in the United Nations organization, resulted in such spectacular failure. May I suggest that as we progress now we keep a steady, balanced mind. We can co-operate, with maximum efficiency, working under a system similar to that which the British commonwealth was envisaging and working toward. This is the one warning that the Social Credit movement has to offer to the Dominion of Canada and to the other freedom-loving nations.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES FIFTH REPORT  CONCURRENCE IN RECOMMEN- DATION RESPECTING CANADIAN-MONTANA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. O. Breithaupt (Waterloo North)
presented the fifth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved:
That the recommendation contained in the fifth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines respecting a charge on the proposed capital stock of Bill No. 117 (letter L-l of the Senate), intituled an act to incorporate Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 191, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the minister shall have leave to introduce this bill?


Mr. Graydon:: After he has explained it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This bill has two purposes, Mr. Speaker. The first is to make available for the administration of prisons in the Northwest and Yukon Territories those sections of the Prisons and Reformatories Act which provide for a statutory remission of sentence which a prisoner may earn by good conduct. The second is to provide a part X of the act to deal with the custodial care of select prisoners in a new reformatory in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Anderson:: 1.	What was the per capita consumption of (a) fruits; (b) vegetables, in each of the provinces of Canada for the latest year during which statistics are available?
2.	What was the per capita consumption of (a) fruits; (b) vegetables, in the leading cities of Canada for the latest year for which statistics are available?
3.	What was the per capita consumption of (a) fruits; (b) vegetables, in each of the leading fruit and vegetable producing and consuming nations for the latest year during which statistics are available?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. Not available. For Canada the figures are as follows:
		Potatoes	Vegetables!1) Fresh Fruit	
Per capita consumption	lbs.	lbs.	lbs.Canada (year ended June 30, 1950)	203-7	141-5	79-60) Includes fresh vegetables, as	well as canned and frozen in terms of fresh.	2. Not available.	3.	Per capita consumption	Potatoes	Vegetables Fresh Fruit	Country	Year!1)	lbs.	lbs.	lbs.France 	.. 1947-48	3161	332-0	69-2Republic of West Germany	.. 1948-49	482-8	133-2	47-8Germany (Soviet zone) 	.. 1947-48	479-9	151-7	43-9Italy	.. 1948-49	83-8	176-4	70-3United Kingdom	.. 1948-49	254-9	140-2	70-5Canada 	.. 1948-49	204-8	141 -3(2)	76-5United States	.. 1948-49	96-8	249-3(s)	155-9Brazil 	.. 1948	19-6	53-4	178-6China	.. 1948-49	5-3	54-9	16-3India 	.. 1947-48	6-4	35-9	55-3Japan 	.. 1948-49	33-1	152-3	24-0(') Consumption year is July 1	to June 30,	except for Brazil	which is calendar	year.(2) Includes fresh vegetables, ;	as well as	canned and frozen	in terms of fresh.	
(3) Includes fresh, canned and frozen.
Source: Food balance sheets, food and agriculture organization.


TRAWLERS
Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmoulh):: 1.	How many new trawlers have been imported from the United Kingdom?
2.	How many secondhand trawlers have been imported from the United Kingdom?
3.	How many secondhand trawlers have been imported from the United States?
4.	How many new keels for trawlers have been laid down in Canadian shipyards?
5.	How many new trawlers have been completed in Canadian shipyards?
6.	How many licensed trawlers are now fishing out of (a) Nova Scotia ports; (b) Prince Edward Island ports; (c) New Brunswick ports; (d) Newfoundland ports?
7.	During the same period, what has been the increase in the number of (a) fishing schooners; (b) draggers: (c) small boats, fishing out of (i) Nova Scotia ports; (ii) Prince Edward Island ports; (iii) New Brunswick ports; (iv) Newfoundland ports?


Mr. MacNaught:: 1. 2.
1618	HOUSE OF
Questions
2. 2.
3.	Nil.
4.	7.
5.	Nil.
6.	(a) 14; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) section 56 of the Fisheries Act, which requires licensing of trawlers, is not yet in force in Newfoundland. However there are 17 trawlers operating there.
7.	(a) Records are not maintained as to number of fishing schooners. Claims for fishing bounty and other information indicate a decline in number of schooners fishing.
(b)	(i) 11; (ii) 2; (iii) 1; (iv) none in operation.
(c)	same as (a).


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fulton:: What progress has been made in the last twelve months in the installation of slide detector fences, block signal systems, and other safety warning devices on the main line of the Canadian National Railways between Red Pass Junction and Boston Bar?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
An experimental section of slide detector fence was placed in service on October 14, 1949, between mileages 93-7 and 94 0 on the Ashcroft subdivision. No further installations of slide detector fence have been placed in service beyond the experimental section.
The Canadian National has under way a well-defined program for the installation of automatic block signals for the entire distance from Jasper, Alta., to Port Mann, B.C.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has any decision been reached, as reported, to change the style of buttons on Canadian army uniforms?
2.	If so, who made the decision to remove the crown from the buttons on Canadian army uniforms?
3.	When was this decision actually made?
4.	Was the decision incorporated in any written order or directive?
5.	If so, to whom was such order or directive issued?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1. Under Canadian army order 84-1 provision is made for the wearing of distinctive corps and unit buttons, or where the unit or corps has not got a distinctive button of its own, the general service button is to be worn. No change has been made in this order.


Approved distinctive corps or unit buttons may still be worn. In August, 1949, a new type of general service button was adopted by Canadian army headquarters, embodying the embossed Canadian army crest and including the crown.
2.	No one.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Answered by No. 2.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Sinnoil:: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways dispose of any property at Grand Beach, Manitoba, in 1950 or 1951?
2.	If so, were bids advertised, and in what papers?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	What are the full particulars in respect to this sale?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	1950, no; 1951, yes.
2.	Invitations to tender appeared in advertisements as follows:
Winnipeg Tribune on August 12, 15, 19, 22, 26, 29 and September 2, 1950; Winnipeg Free Press on August 12, 17, 19, 24, 26, 31 and September 2, 1950.
3.	It is not the policy of the company to disclose the details of transactions involving contractual arrangements between sellers and buyers.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY    AGREEMENT AS TO TOLLS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are there in existence any written documents embodying an agreement in principle between Canada and the United States of America that the proposed St. Lawrence seaway be made self-liquidating by means of tolls?
2.	If so, when was this agreement reduced to writing, and what form does the writing take (i.e., exchange of letters, formal documents, etc.) ?


Mr. Lesage:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What was the cost to the federal government of exploring and developing the tungsten ore bodies at the Emerald mine in British Columbia during the last war?
2.	Was this property sold by War Assets Corporation?
3.	If so, on what date, for what price and to whom?
4.	Has this property been repurchased by the federal government?
5.	If so, at what price, at what date, and1 from whom?
6.	Were all of the assets that were sold included in the repurchase agreement?



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many employees and members of the national film board received more than $500 in travelling expenses in 1950?
2.	What are their names, and how much did each receive?


Mr. Winters:: Return tabled.



VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. McGregor:: 1.	How many veterans settled under the Veterans Land Act, in each province?
2.	What was the number of parcels of land, with or without buildings, sold to veterans in each province?
3.	How many homes were erected or are in the course of erection on this land, by provinces?
4.	What is the number of resales of property bought under V.L.A., by provinces?
5.	What is the number of parcels of land, with or without buildings, which have been sold by V.L.A. to other than veterans, in each province?
6.	What is the total value of the land so sold, in each province?
7.	What is the number of inspectors or field men under V.L.A., in each province?
8.	What is the number of cars used by these men, in each province?
9.	What is the total number of cars owned and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, in each province?
10.	What is the total number of employees and officials in all V.L.A. branches, in each province?
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee VETERANS AFFAIRS



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER SPECIAL FORCE BENEFITS AND AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING ACTS

Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That a special committee composed of 27 members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider a bill to enact the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act; also proposed amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and such other legislation as may be placed before it, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto, and that paragraph one of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.
That the committee shall have leave to sit while the house is sitting.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I can get the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to ask that the resolution be amended by substituting the figure "31" for the figure "27" in the opening words of the resolution indicating the number of members who shall constitute the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house that the motion be so amended?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution calling for a special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, it was my thought, as I announced soon after I assumed this portfolio, that the time is appropriate when a committee of the house should make a study of certain of our veterans legislation. This is particularly true in view of changing conditions, and in view of the fact that once again we have Canadian troops in the front lines fighting against aggression.
The resolution as presented is a broad general indication of the legislation which, in the opinion of the government, needs certain amendments and revisions. It is not my purpose at this time to go into the details of these amendments, because they will be brought before the house and before the proposed committee in due time. At the moment, final departmental and interdepartmental attention is being given to the legislation, some of which will be ready to be introduced in a very short time indeed.

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee
You will note, however, that amendments are proposed to the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act-that is to be presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), although this legislation is part of the veterans charter. In addition, there will be legislation to extend to members of the special force certain appropriate benefits which were available to the veterans of world war II. Some of those benefits have already been extended by order in council under the legislation passed at the last session, and it is our intention at this time to incorporate these into legislation.
However, I might point out at this stage that this legislation for the special force will not at this time be made to include all the benefits given to the veterans of the second world war. This decision is made because the situation is still far from being what I might call static, and in the opinion of the government it is advisable that some degree of elasticity in regard to benefits to the members of the special force should be maintained, and that permanent legislation in regard to certain of the benefits should not be placed on the statute book until such time as we have a much clearer picture of the situation. Hon. members will recall that in effect this will be following the practice in developing the rehabilitation grants program during and after world war II.
In moving for this special parliamentary committee to study the changes in legislation the government is following a long-established practice. Such committees were set up originally after the first world war, and they continued at every second or third session of parliament from 1927 up until a couple of years before the outbreak of world war II.
The committees which have considered veterans legislation during and after 1945 have contributed a great deal to its effectiveness. All told I believe there have been about eighteen parliamentary committees on veterans affairs in the thirty-two years since the end of world war I. Most of them have been called upon to consider problems relating to veterans generally. Some of them were called to consider specific questions, such as the disposal of canteen funds, and other matters.
As a private member I have been privileged to sit on those committees which were constituted following the end of world war II, and I think it is proper that I should pay my tribute to the sincerity of purpose of all members who sat on those committees. Representing all parties in the house, the debate was invariably on a high level and

devoid of political partisanship. I believe that is as it should be in discussing veterans legislation.
I feel we can agree that in the over-all picture, Canada's veterans legislation is as complete a rehabilitation program as has been made available by any country to its ex-service men and women. It has provided almost blanket protection in the months immediately following demobilization. It has provided assistance in many forms to the ex-service men or women planning a peacetime career. In practice it has worked well, and the vast majority of veterans using intelligently and constructively the rehabilitation aids extended to them, are now firmly reestablished in civilian life.
With the exception of that general statement, I do not intend at this time to review the work of my department or the success of the rehabilitation program, because there will be adequate opportunity to go into these matters fully at a later date, as various legislation is presented to the house, and when the estimates of my department are called.
However, although up until this time the legislation has met most of the needs of veterans, in the opinion of the government the time is now appropriate when certain portions of that legislation should be reviewed. My information in the matter has been strengthened, because I have had the opportunity to visit many of our districts and to discuss legislation with the officers of the department and of national veterans organizations. Officers of the department who have been making a special study of these problems will be readily available to the committee, as usual,'and I trust they will be able promptly to furnish such information and records as the committee may require, and as they have done in the past.
The committee will be asked also to consider a measure of assistance for the unemployable disability pensioners, for which a special appropriation will be provided under the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. It is not my intention to go into detail regarding this supplement for unemployables at this stage, as full opportunity will be furnished to the committee and, as I said earlier, officers of the department will be available to make known to members of the committee the results of their studies.
However I believe the following broad outline will be of interest to hon. members. In approaching the problem it should be borne in mind that the present liability for pensions on behalf of nearly 160,000 disabled veterans, with their dependents, wives and

children, amounts to over $67 million annually. A survey made of these pensions paid out shows that, of that amount, $18 million is paid to pensioners with disability of 20 per cent or less, representing 60 per cent of the total number of pensioners; $14 million to pensioners of from 25 per cent to 45 per cent disability, representing 20 per cent of the total; $15 million to pensioners of from 50 per cent to 75 per cent disability, representing 10 per cent of the total pensioners and, finally, $20 million to pensioners with from 80 per cent to 100 per cent disability representing the balance of 10 per cent of the total.
A close study throughout Canada by the welfare service branch of the department has shown a remarkably high level of employment of disability pensioners. A more detailed examination of high disability pensioners, registered with the casualty rehabilitation branch of the department, including those pensioners with between 80 per cent and 100 per cent disability, and having reference to paraplegics, the blind and double amputation cases, shows that less than 10 per cent of these high disability pensioners are unemployed.
The strong pleas which have reached me have been directed on behalf of the unemployable disability pensioner, and particularly those in the high pension brackets who have no incomes other than their pensions. The new measure of assistance is to provide an unemployability supplement which, in the case of a married pensioner may be up to $40 monthly, and in that of a single pensioner up to $20 monthly. The sum total of war veterans allowances and these unemployability supplements shall not exceed those amounts.
In order that prompt action may be taken and a full inquiry made, it is the intention to administer this unemployability supplement under the direction of authorities in each departmental district, in the same way as war veterans allowances are now administered.
It is also the intention to refer to the committee a bill to amend the Pension Act. The main feature of the bill will be more adequately to care for the children of pensioned widows, and to provide means whereby the higher education of such children of disability pensioners will be encouraged.
In introducing this resolution the government has signified its approval of the appointment of this committee, which will be named as soon as the resolution is adopted. As minister of the department I should like to put myself on record as welcoming its assistance, for I am quite sure that the report which it will submit when its work has been
4. 1951
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee concluded will reflect careful and constructive consideration of the legislation placed before it.
There is perhaps one further thought which I should add. I have said that it is the intention of the government to ask this committee to consider certain proposed changes in veterans legislation. However, it is probable that in addition veterans bodies and perhaps other groups will ask for permission to make representations through the committee to the government. I feel that if such requests are made they would come within the scope of the committee. This has been the custom in the past and is one which I hope will be continued.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I
am sure we all agree with the minister that this is an appropriate time to set up a committee to study veterans affairs. I congratulate the minister upon doing this, and I am sure that we all wish him success in the work he has undertaken as head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have had the pleasure of sitting on committees with the minister, and I know he is anxious to do a good job.
I have often felt that there should be a permanent veterans affairs committee. I am not suggesting anything new, because this has been suggested by many hon. members on different occasions. There is quite a number of standing committees of the house, many of which seldom sit. I have been on a good many of them myself, and I notice that there is practically no work for certain committees to do. Year after year these standing committees are set up; we have them on paper, but that is practically all there is to it. I think the minister and others will agree that matters concerning veterans come up every year which are of great importance to the veterans, and I believe a standing committee would be of great value.
I do not intend to discuss veterans affairs at any length this afternoon, because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so on the motion to set up a committee. I might point out that I am disappointed in the number on the committee. The resolution mentions twenty-seven members, but the minister has asked that the resolution be amended to increase the number to thirty-one. I think this will be about the smallest committee on veterans affairs we have had in this house. It is certainly the smallest that we have had in quite a number of years. The veterans affairs committee which was set up in 1945 by the late Mr. Mackenzie had sixty members. There were sixty members on the
1622	HOUSE OF
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee committee oi 1946. There were thirty-five members on the committee set up in 1948, and at that time that number was considered to, be small. With the large number of veterans on all sides of the house I think the minister would have been well advised to have a larger committee. Veteran members of all parties are interested in the welfare of the veterans, and I am sure that greater benefits would be derived if this committee were made up of a larger group of returned men. However, I am not going to press the point; no doubt the thirty-one members of the committee will do a good job.
The most important part of this resolution is the terms of reference, and I am wondering whether they are broad enough to include all matters which should be included. I note that the terms of reference of the committee of 1946 were entirely different, and the same applies to the terms of reference of the committee of 1945. Perhaps the minister will explain this later on. The resolution passed in 1945 read as follows:
Resolved, that a select committee be appointed,
1.	To consider all legislation passed since the commencement of the war with the German reich relating to the pensions, treatment, and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related' to war;
2.	To prepare and bring in one or more bills to clarify, amend or supplement the above legislation.
The committee of 1945 had the duty of preparing and bringing in one or more bills to clarify, amend or supplement the legislation. The resolution which has been moved reads:
That a special committee composed of 31 members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider a bill to enact the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act; also proposed amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and such other legislation as may be placed before it, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto, and that paragraph 1 of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Under these terms of reference we shall be able to deal only with such legislation as is brought before us. For instance, we can deal with the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act, which, as I gather from the remarks of the minister, has to do only with the special force. I should like to ask whether this would include men who might be sent to Europe under the Atlantic pact, and men of the transport command who are carrying many United States soldiers, as well as our own troops, to the Far East. Then there is the matter of the men in the Canadian navy. They are mostly in the permanent force. There is the special force, and in that special force we have men who are volunteers for


this particular duty, and there are men of the permanent navy and of the permanent air force. Will all these men be covered?
The minister has stated that there are a great many matters to be considered. For instance, he spoke of the unemployable pensioner. 1 think we all agree that legislation to assist the unemployable pensioner would be most beneficial and would receive the endorsation of all members of the committee and of the house. The minister spoke also of the Pension Act and said that it would deal principally with children. I should like to point out that we have to deal with more than children when considering the Pension Act. We asked in 1948, for instance, that the amount of pension under the Pension Act be increased by 33J per cent. It was increased by 25 per cent. The cost of living today has risen in the neighbourhood of 79 per cent, and we cannot put off any longer increasing the pension in order to provide some relief for pensioners of the last two wars.
Then there are widow's pensions. I should also like to ask the minister if the terms of reference are broad enough-arid I do not think they are-to include war veterans allowances, for instance. Today we are paying $40 a month to war veterans while old age pensions are being increased, and there is talk of increasing them further. This is a matter which should be considered now and not left until next year or some other year. The terms of reference must be broad enough to include all problems of returned soldiers, not just the problems connected with the special force.
I might also say to the minister that what the proposed committee will do will have a great effect upon the attitude that the young men of the country will take with respect to enlisting in our active forces. We are asking now for many thousands of men, and, although I hope we shall not, we may need hundreds of thousands of young men. If they knew that adequate provisions were being made for them, it would have a very good effect so far as recruitment and enlistment are concerned.
As I said at the outset, it is not my intention at this time to go into all the different phases of veterans affairs. There will be ample opportunity to do that later, but the important matter that I wish to put before the minister now is the question of the terms of reference. I do not think they are broad enough; therefore I should like to move the following amendment:
That the resolution be amended by adding after the word "it" in the sixth line thereof the following:
"and the legislation relating to pensions, war veterans allowance, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war."


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment, I should also like to compliment the minister for having introduced a resolution at this session to set up a veterans affairs committee. Like the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), we in this group have urged from time to time that there should be a standing committee of the house to deal with veterans legislation. The minister has indicated the number of veterans committees that have been set up during the past few years. Almost every second year since 1945 we have had a veterans affairs committee of the house. I am sure it is the wish, not only of the veterans organizations but also of the veterans themselves, individuals to whom I have spoken, that we should have a standing committee of the house which could deal from year to year with the various problems arising under the veterans charter.
Taken as a whole, I think our veterans charter compares quite favourably with similar legislation anywhere else in the world. We have nothing to be ashamed of so far as the way in which we have treated our veterans is concerned, but the extent of the legislation itself indicates that problems will arise from time to time. Problems in administration must arise from year to year, and I think they could be dealt with by a standing committee of the house in co-operation with the officials of the department. In former years there has been co-operation between the officials of the department and veterans affairs committees which have been established. I think something is to be gained from close co-operation between departmental officials and members of the veterans affairs committee that is of value to the smooth operation of any veterans charter in this country.
Like the hon. member for Royal, I think that the terms of reference are too narrow. As a matter of fact if he had not moved an amendment I would have done so, because I have one here that is quite similar. I can assure him that we will support his amendment, because I am sure that the terms of the present reference are not sufficiently broad to do the job which we believe should be done at this time with respect to veterans legislation. I have not copies of references of the house to former veterans affairs committees, but as I remember them I think this is probably the narrowest reference that we have had for a number of years. As a rule, references of the house to veterans affairs committees established in former years have been fairly broad. Under them we have been able to deal with practically all aspects of veterans legislation, and, in my opinion, in
4, 1351
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee such a way as to result in betterment of the various acts and greater satisfaction to the veterans themselves. After all, what we are here for is to give reasonable satisfaction to the veterans who made sacrifices in war to preserve our liberties.
I do not think that the present scale of pensions is nearly sufficient. During the sessions of the last veterans affairs committee we suggested, as the hon. member for Royal has stated, an increase of 33J per cent, and it was finally adjusted to 25 per cent. Since that time the cost of living has increased tremendously. We must not forget that the basis of veterans pensions in Canada is the wages of the ordinary working man. Since the Pension Act was originally written, those wages have increased from a base of 100 to a base of 218 today. On the other hand, pensions have increased by only 25 per cent. Therefore, having regard to the base under which the pensions were originally established, I feel that they are too low today, and that we should do something at this time to see that they are brought more in line with their original base.
I am very glad indeed that the minister mentioned something about the education of deceased veterans' children. I raised this subject in the last two veterans affairs committees. Many of these children are now coming to an age when they are going to need assistance. If their fathers had lived and had been able to return to Canada they would have been able to take care of some of these problems. Unfortunately they did not, and not only have these children been deprived of their fathers' care and advice, but the pension received by the mothers and children is not sufficient to meet the increased costs of living and to give the children an opportunity for a better education. I am sure all hon. members agree that one of the finest parts of our veterans legislation is that part which provides educational opportunities for our returned men. It is one of the parts which has been most appreciated. It seems to me that the country should be prepared to give the same educational opportunity to the children of deceased veterans as it was prepared to give to the veteran himself had he returned. That is the least that we can do. I am pleased to note that the minister has mentioned this, and I hope that when the suggestions of the government are brought before the committee they will be liberal suggestions in more than one sense, and that they will adequately take care of the education of the children of deceased veterans.
I should like to mention one other group that in my opinion should have something done for them; I refer to the group receiving

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee a low pension rate, many of whom had preenlistment disabilities. I meet many veterans who are receiving a fifteen or twenty per cent disability pension, and who are classified as having a thirty or forty per cent pre-enlistment disability. As a result their pension is quite low. Because of that pre-enlistment disability, they are unable to do many forms of work. At this time it is not good for this country to have a number of veterans who are receiving a low pension rate and yet are unable to take a position which will enable them to obtain a good standard of living. There are a considerable number in that class. I believe that the committee should give some consideration to taking care of that group.
There are also those who are today receiving a war veterans allowance. I believe this committee will have missed the mark unless it does something about war veterans allowances, because certainly they are too low. Today the allowance is below the old age pension being paid in at least the four western provinces. I recall that last year or the year before the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) cited an instance in his own constituency in which a man who had served in the army of our enemy in the first war was today receiving a higher old age pension than our own veteran who was living right beside him. Such a condition should not exist. The war veterans allowance should be increased sufficiently to take care of those ageing veterans because today most of the veterans from the first war are at such an age that their earning capacity is extremely low. Because of this, and the increased cost of living, their standard of living is definitely being reduced. I do not think there is a member in the house who can argue otherwise. With the world situation what it is today, and at a time when we are asking young men to volunteer, the fact that these veterans are allowed to live on a substandard scale is not good. I believe we shall have missed our objective if we do not do something about it.
The new cost of living index which was announced today now stands at 179-7. There has been a rise of 4-5 since the last figure was announced, and that is the greatest increase in our history in the cost of living index over a similar period of time. There is no indication that it is going to stop there. The wholesale index is still going up, and that rise in the wholesale index must inevitably be transferred into a higher cost of living in the months to come. I hope that the increase will not be as great as it has been in this last month. If it is, then I am afraid


we shall have to do something about it very quickly or we shall have discontent in this country.
I say that something should be done about the war veterans allowance by this committee. It should! be increased so that the veterans who may be able to qualify for the allowance may have a standard of living that will compare favourably with that of other working people in this country. The basis upon which the pension was originally established/ was to give the veteran an equal standard of living with the other wage earners in Canada. As a matter of fact the pension is based on the earnings of a man who works with his hands. Today, because of new plant equipment, new methods of operation and production in our factories, we have far more trained people who earn more than the common labourer. It seems to me that the pension should be based on a higher standard than the earnings of a common labourer.
The fact that there has been a rise in the cost of living index, the fact that there is a greater percentage of the working population today who are trained and who are receiving higher rates of pay than they were when the original Pension Act was brought into force, are arguments that the Pension Act itself should be revised. A much higher rate should be paid.
I am not going to discuss many of the other matters with which I could deal concerning pensions, but I would ask that the minister give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the member for Royal to broaden the basis of reference to the veterans affairs committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the member for
Acadia (Mr. Quelch) speaks, perhaps I should bring to the attention of the house the question whether or not this amendment is in order. It seems to me that the amendment broadens the powers of the committee, and would give it wider powers than those which are set out in the notice. I believe it has been established in this house that the notice of motion setting up a committee cannot be amended to give the committee wider powers than those set out in the notice of motion. As I see this matter now, it occurs to me that the amendment is not in order.
May I refer hon. members to paragraph 546 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice. On the 13th March, 1938, a minister moved that a special committee be appointed to study the question of

redistribution ot electoral districts and to inquire into the methods whereby the source of campaign funds may be traceable. Two amendments were moved: One proposed that the committee's powers be extended so as to investigate amounts of contributions over $100 for the past ten years; the other proposed to investigate the methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise.
The Speaker ruled both amendments out of order on the ground that they raised new questions not contemplated in the notice of motion and proposed to extend the committee's powers far beyond those set down in the notice, and also that the necessity of giving notice will be nullified if such notice is not used as a guidance for the decision of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you make a final ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of citation 546, I wonder if a couple of points should not be given further consideration. I note that the Speaker on that occasion ruled both amendments out of order, not just on the ground that they widened the powers of the committee but more specifically on the ground that they raised new questions not contemplated in the notice of motion. It seems to me that the Speaker had grounds for that ruling, bearing in mind the general rule respecting amendments, namely that they must abide by the law of relevancy.
I have not here the Journals or the Hansard from which this citation was taken, but I find that I have looked it up on a former occasion and that I have a few pencilled notes in the margin of my copy of Beau-chesne's third edition. In fact, I discover that the amendments in question were moved by members of this group, namely by Mr. Grant MacNeil and by the present hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis); but that after those two amendments were ruled out of order the leader of this group moved a motion of instruction which had the effect of broadening the powers of the committee but without bringing in any irrelevant subject matter, and that that other motion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was accepted and passed.
It seems to me that a line must be drawn by Your Honour between a simple motion which broadens the powers of the committee but stays within the law of relevancy and a motion which would introduce material that is brand new. It seems to me that there was a case against those amendments referred to in citation 546, on the ground that they introduced something quite new. As to the amendment moved today by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), surely it abides by the law of relevancy, for it deals with veterans' matters and spells out the general phrase
4. 1951
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee that is in the resolution. I might say further, by way of notice being given, that this matter was dealt with in the speech from the throne. One of the paragraphs in the speech from the throne of this year reads as follows:
Legislation will be submitted respecting the application of the benefits of the veterans charter to members of the special force. Amendments will be introduced to legislation concerning pensions for veterans and their dependents to relieve difficulties being experienced by certain groups of pensioners provided for thereunder.
Many of the pensioners experiencing difficulties referred to in that sentence in the speech from the throne are pensioners, for example, who are on small disability pensions and also on the burnt-out pension. All of us felt, from the wording of that notice in the speech from the throne, that when the legislation forecast thereby was brought in an act like the War Veterans Allowance Act and the others referred to by the hon. member for Royal would be included.
I need not go further with the point, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that Your Honour should draw the line between the type of amendment that brings in something that is foreign to the subject matter of which notice has been given and an amendment which, it is true, broadens the powers of the committee but does it within the law of relevancy, within the subject matter covered-in general, at least-by the motion that is before us.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that to argue that an amendment must not be put forward because it broadens the terms of a motion is to overlook the fact that that is basically the purpose of an amendment. I could turn up the citation-but I believe it is as familiar to Your Honour as it is to me-that says that the purpose of an amendment is to make a motion more acceptable to members than it would be without the change or the addition proposed by that amendment. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, namely to make this motion moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) more acceptable to the house by broadening these terms of reference, at the same time staying within the law of relevancy.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that if you should rule this amendment out of order, then, for all practical purposes, it would be impossible to move an amendment to any notice of motion of this kind; because there could not be a case in which the amendment would be more relevant to the contents of the notice of motion than is this one.

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee
The finding made, as reported in Beau-chesne under paragraph 546, had to do with a committee which was set up to study the question of the redistribution of electoral districts. It was not a committee to consider the elections act but a committee to study redistribution. To that motion two amendments were moved. One had to do with an investigation of campaign funds and contributions, something which obviously had nothing whatever to do with the question of the redistribution of constituencies. The second amendment had to do with methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in British Columbia might be enabled to exercise their franchise. That second amendment obviously had to do with the elections act. It had nothing whatever to do with the question of redistribution.
May I therefore submit to Your Honour that this particular ruling, upon which you are now disposed to rule against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, is not in point at all. There it was an obvious attempt to throw something in which had nothing to do with the original notice of motion. The present amendment, on the other hand, deals directly with the subject which is set out in the notice of motion.
I would repeat that if Your Honour rules that this particular amendment is out of order, then in effect it will be impossible in this house for a member to rise and move an amendment to a notice of motion such as that brought in by the Minister of Veterans Affairs today.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attention to the arguments submitted by the two hon. members who have discussed the question you raised as to the conformity with the rules of the house of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Royal. If we consider its terms, and compare those terms with the terms of the notice, we find at once that it changes entirely the purpose for which the notice provided for the setting up of a committee. The notice provided for the setting up of a committee-
... to consider a bill to enact the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act; also proposed amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and such other legislation as may be placed before it . . .
It is well known that such legislation involves the expenditure of public moneys and must be preceded by a resolution which is recommended to the house by His Excellency the Governor General. This notice is drawn in such a form as to set up a committee to consider legislation which will have been introduced in the house and referred

to the committee. The amendment would change it entirely and make it a committee to consider the situation of veterans generally-


Howard Charles Green: That is what the minister said it was for this afternoon.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and the legislation relating to pensions, war veterans allowances, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war. It makes it a different kind of a committee from the committee to which the notice applies. Of course the house has at all times the right to set up all the committees it sees fit to set up. But the rules of the house provide that notice must be given in advance of the intention to move that a committee for any specific purpose shall be set up.
The decision to which Your Honour referred does not at all affect the powers of the house. The house would have had on that occasion the right to set up a committee to consider the manner in which the lumbermen in British Columbia could exercise their franchise; but in order to do that it would have required that a notice be given of the intention to make such a motion. And I think that if we are to apply the rules of the house to the establishment of a committee with the wide scope envisaged by the amendment, there will have to be notice given in advance.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the representations that have been made by the members on the point of order which I have raised. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) stated that the motion which was before the house, and referred to in paragraph 546 of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, third edition, was one to study the question of redistribution of electoral districts; but I might also point out that it was to inquire into the methods whereby the source of campaign funds may be traceable. The amendment which was declared out of order suggested that the committee should be empowered to investigate the amounts of contributions over $100 for the past ten years. I think in that instance hon. members could have argued that the amendment was relevant to the powers set forth in the original notice of motion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that when the amendment referred to in paragraph 546 was ruled out of order the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved another amendment giving instructions to the committee. May I point out to the house that the amendment which was moved by the

hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar at that time was moved by leave of the house.
I am afraid that if I allow this motion to stand I will find myself in difficulty every time a notice of motion is before the house for setting up a committee. I am bound by the rules of the house, and I feel satisfied that it has been established in this house that an amendment cannot be moved which would widen the scope of the powers of the committee as set forth in the notice of motion, In order to rule otherwise I would have to go directly against the opening words of paragraph 546 which says:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
I feel I must rule the amendment out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: Since you have ruled the amendment out of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a second one, which will I think perhaps narrow it, and which will come within the terms of reference. The terms of reference are these:
Resolved, that a special committee composed of 31 members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider a bill to enact the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act; also proposed amendments to the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and such other legislation as may be placed before it,...
-such as the War Veterans Allowance Act. Therefore I would move that the motion be amended by inserting therein immediately after the word "it", in line 6 thereof, the following words:
such as the War Veterans Allowance Act.
This amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). It quite clearly indicates in the notice of motion that there may be other legislation, and we are just indicating one piece of legislation which we believe should be considered under that reference to other legislation.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Acadia continues, it seems to me that this amendment does not add to or detract from the notice of motion which is before the house. I do not think it clarifies the notice of motion in any way. I think this amendment is also out of order. I would rule it out of order on the ground that it neither adds to nor detracts from the notice of motion, nor does it in any way clarify the notice of motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you ruled?
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I have ruled. I did not know the hon. member wanted to speak.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Charles Green: He has the right to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not interrupt Your Honour; I was hoping you would give me an opportunity to speak before you ruled.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have had similar instances in this very session. I refer in particular to the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne which was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). It made reference to ways of dealing with the rising cost of living, from this group there was moved a subamendment which spelled out some of the ways to do what was referred to in the amendment, and I suggest that is precisely what the amendment now moved by my colleague from Melfort (Mr. Wright) proposes to do. It adds to a general phrase a specific reference. The general phrase is put in these words:
and such other legislation as may be placed before it.
My colleague, the hon. member for Melfort, spells out one example of such other legislation by adding the words:
such as the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The purpose that my colleague has in mind in presenting the amendment in this form is to meet the objection that Your Honour made to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). This does not introduce anything new; this simply spells out something to which there was perhaps an implied reference in the original notice of motion.
Although Your Honour did not dwell upon it, objection to the previous amendment was made by the Prime Minister with regard to the necessity of any money measure being introduced by a minister of the crown. The amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) does not make it necessary that proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act be placed before the committee, in order for such proposed amendments to be discussed. It would merely give the committee power to deal with and to discuss the whole question of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I submit, with all respect, that Your Honour should reconsider. We are trying to meet the objection raised to the previous amendment; and I submit that this amendment does spell out the meaning of the general phrase in the main motion, and that it should be allowed.

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member is right in his last words that this amendment would allow the committee to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act, whether any amendment were put before it or not, then it certainly enlarges the terms of the notice of motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Committees do it all the time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If they can do that, without this addition suggested by the hon. member, then the objection Your Honour urged a few moments ago to its validity is conclusive. If it adds nothing, if it clarifies nothing, then it is not an amendment that is in order. And if it has any effect whatsoever, its only effect can be to enlarge the scope for which provision is made in the notice of motion. The notice of motion provides that other legislation may be considered if it is placed before the committee. The hon. member says that with the amendment suggested the War Veterans Allowance Act and its implications and effect could be considered, whether legislation respecting it is placed before the committee or not. That clearly enlarges the scope of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say to the Prime
Minister that he is correct in saying that it enlarges the scope of the committee, to make it clear that it can deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I would point out to him that at the last session we had a special committee of the house dealing with old age security. There were no proposed amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act; but because the terms of reference of that committee covered the whole question of old age security we had the right in that committee to deal exhaustively with the Old Age Pensions Act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And that had been preceded by a resolution or by a notice which went to that extent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That just gets back to the original argument. Surely we are not to be denied the right to move amendments to all motions of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that if he had convinced me that I was wrong when I made my ruling a few moments ago I would have reconsidered it, owing to the fact that I had not given him an opportunity to speak. I might point out that I thought I had given all hon. members an opportunity to speak to the point of order before I made my ruling.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that this amendment spells out the terms of the notice of motion, and has referred to the fact that this is done

when an amendment is moved to the motion for the adoption of the speech from the throne. But I would point out to him, as at times he has pointed out to me, that much more latitude is given in a motion for the adoption of the speech from the throne than is given in other cases.
For the reasons already given I must rule that the present amendment also is out of order.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, those of us in this group are glad the minister has seen fit to introduce a resolution to set up a special committee on veterans affairs. In the last session we said we thought it should have been set up at that time, because in the past it has been customary to set up a special committee on veterans affairs early in each parliament. Now we have reached the third session-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fourth session.


Victor Quelch: -the fourth session of this parliament before action has been taken.
We have also said in the past that we would favour the committee of veterans affairs being made a permanent, standing committee, so that we could meet grievances as they arise, instead of waiting until a backlog of those grievances accumulates. In view of the fact that the last committee sat in 1948, I am pretty sure we will find that there is a heavy backlog of grievances with which we will have to deal.
I regret, too, that the terms of reference have been narrowed. I looked through the terms of reference of previous committees back to 1945, and I find that the terms under which this committee will operate are considerably narrower than those of other committees. I can well understand that the terms of reference now might be narrower than those in 1945 or 1946, immediately after the war. But these terms are considerably narrower than the terms of reference in 1948, which is the last year in which a committee was set up. The terms of reference in 1948 read:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
In other words, those terms of reference covered practically all veterans legislation. It dealt with the re-establishment of veterans, and therefore dealt with the question of the War Veterans Allowance Act. In this instance however the resolution makes specific mention of bills with which the committee may deal, and then states further that it may be able to

consider legislation the government may bring down. However there is no mention of the War Veterans Allowance Act or the Veterans Land Act.
I am satisfied there is going to be very strong pressure brought to bear on the committee to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act at some stage of its deliberations, because I doubt if there is any piece of veterans legislation today with which there is more dissatisfaction. I am not blaming the act, because it is a good one. I am blaming the condition as it exists today, in the light of the cost of living having risen in the way it has risen. For this reason the amount of the allowance is altogether inadequate to meet the cost of living of a single or a married veteran.
The minister stated that veterans organizations would be allowed to submit briefs to the committee, as they have in the past. If the minister is going to dictate to the Legion and to the national council of veterans organizations as to what they can put in their briefs, then it will be the first time that has ever been done. I am satisfied he will cause a tremendous amount of hostility in both the Legion and the national council if he tries to tell them what they can put in their briefs.
I would suppose that in those briefs there would be reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act. If in the Legion's brief there is a recommendation with respect to war veterans allowances, is the minister going to say to the committee, "You cannot consider the recommendation of the Legion regarding war veterans allowances"? In the past we have always considered the briefs of these organizations when they have been submitted to the committee. Undoubtedly in the briefs presented this year there will be recommendations regarding war veterans allowances. Are we going to be debarred from considering those recommendations? Are we going to be debarred! from making recommendations with regard to submissions made by the Legion in connection with war veterans allowances? I am not going to try to move another amendment as I am dissuaded from taking that action by what has already happened to those who have tried to move amendments.
I am going to ask the minister to give the house the assurance that when this committee sits it will be in position to give consideration to any matter of urgent importance so far as the veterans are concerned and to any matter that is mentioned in a brief presented1 by a veterans organization. If the minister will give that assurance I think a lot of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed will be 80709-104
4. 1951	1629
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee met. I think the minister will agree that we will be in a most difficult position if we cannot give consideration to recommendations by the Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations. If the minister will give that assurance we will be in position to consider briefs in full and the veterans organizations will be free to make submissions on any matter. That assurance would meet much of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed1 with regard to the terms of reference and I personally would have no further fear in that regard. As I expect to be a member of this committee I shall have plenty of opportunity to say what I want to say, so 1 shall say no more at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was making his statement this afternoon in moving the resolution I understood him to say that following the established practice in this house this special committee on veterans affairs would be dealing with veteran problems generally.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Howard Charles Green: The minister used words to
that effect, or in any event that was the understanding I got from his remarks.


Hugues Lapointe: My exact words were that
this committee of the house would make a study of certain of our legislation.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure that if Hansard is
checked it will be found that the minister said that following the established practice in this house this committee would deal with veteran problems generally.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe I have the statement to which my hon. friend refers. I referred to some eighteen odd committees that had been set up since the first war to deal with veteran matters. I mentioned that some of them had been given terms of reference to deal with specific matters, such as canteen funds, while others had dealt with veteran problems generally. That was where I used those words. I did not use them with reference to the committee which is the subject matter of this resolution.


Howard Charles Green: The minister certainly did not give the impression that this particular committee was to deal only with one or two special problems. Certainly the practice for many years with veterans affairs committees has been to have the committee deal with any veteran problem. That is the expectation of veterans across this country. I know I have been asked many times by veterans when something could be done about their problems and I have always answered that
1630	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee when we had a veterans affairs committee it would be possible to have these various matters discussed. Today the understanding of the veterans organizations from coast to coast is that when the special committee on veterans affairs is set up it will be able to deal with veteran problems generally.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not make that statement. I insist that I made no such statement at this time, or at any previous time when I was referring to this parliamentary committee.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that this
committee shall have restricted powers and be able to deal only with the specific matters set out in the resolution?


Hugues Lapointe: The committee will be
called upon to deal with the matters set out in the terms of reference in this resolution. I want to point out that that is what I have said ever since I took over the portfolio of veterans affairs. My hon. friend has referred to what he understands is the belief of the veterans organizations as to the work of this committee. I have made it quite plain before the officers of these organizations on various occasions that this committee would be set up to consider legislation to be sent to it by the House of Commons or legislation to be introduced during the session. I . have been most specific on this matter.


Howard Charles Green: I can only say that I greatly
regret that is the decision of the minister because it is not in line with the stand taken by his predecessors. I remember the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie when he was minister of this department. As we all know, he did good work as minister of veterans affairs in setting up the veterans charter. He invariably took the position that a committee on veterans affairs must be able to deal with any question having to do with veterans. It was for that reason that he had such success. The members of the committees knew that they were being given the responsibility of reviewing the whole field of veterans legislation. It was considered to be a great honour and responsibility and they took it seriously.
We find that the committee to be set up in the present session is to be restricted to certain specific matters, to legislation which the government chooses to bring in. Unless there is an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act the committee will be precluded from making any recommendation in connection with that act. Apart from the Pension Act the only statutes mentioned are the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act and the Veterans
Business and Professional Loans Act. We all know that the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act applied only to veterans of the first war. Those are the only three acts out of a group of perhaps ten or twelve having to do with veterans which are open for discussion under this resolution. Of course there is such other legislation as the government sees fit to bring in, but the result is that there can be no broad discussion of veteran problems and no broad findings in connection with those problems.
I hope the minister will give further consideration to the suggestions which have been made this afternoon by members of the opposition. If he will come to the conclusion that it would be wise to trust the committee to review all veteran problems in a fair way I think he will obtain better results than he will by attempting to put a bridle on the committee and thereby hamper its work.
We are now in the fourth session of this parliament and it is most unlikely that there will be another committee on veterans affairs during the life of this parliament; there has been no such committee yet. Now this is the last chance to bring veterans legislation up to date during the life of this parliament. It is therefore important that this committee should be given wider powers than those given to a committee being set up year after year.
In his remarks the minister also gave some details of the proposed amendments to the Pension Act. He said that there was to be a new departure in pension legislation, what he called an unemployable disability pension; he also described it as an unemployability supplement. In the speech from the throne I find a little further explanation in the paragraph reading:
Amendments will be introduced to legislation concerning pensions for veterans and their dependents to relieve difficulties being experienced by certain groups of pensioners provided for thereunder.
I was shocked last night to read in the April edition of The Legionary an article by the dominion first vice-president, Dr. C. B. Lumsden, entitled "Pensioners' Plight". In that article he set out that he believed it was the intention of the government not to grant a general increase in the pension rate but to establish a means test under the Pension Act and pay a supplement to those pensioners who were having the hardest time economically. Today we have the minister making a statement which appears to mean just that, that instead of raising the Canadian disability pension as it should be raised there is to be a handout by means of a means test to those pensioners who are having the hardest time to get along.

Of course that is the same thing that was done with the War Veterans Allowance Act two or three years ago. The rate of war veterans allowance should have been increased but instead of doing so there was a second means test provided under which, if the recipient of war veterans allowance could prove that he was very hard up, he could be given some additional payment. There has never been a means test attached to the Canadian Pension Act in the history of this country. The pensioners of this country are the men and women of this nation who of all people deserve the payments that are made to them. They are payments earned by the suffering of themselves or their loved ones who are gone. The Canadian people owe a greater debt to the war pensioners of Canada than to any other group in the nation.
It has been one of the tenets of war veterans organizations right from the start that the pension is not a handout, is not subject to a means test but is payable as of right, and that if a pensioner has been disabled to such an extent that he receives 100 per cent pension that does not interfere with his right to go out and work at a job which brings him $10,000 a year if he is able to do so in spite of his handicap. One of the fundamentals of pension legislation in Canada has been that the fact that a man has a good job must not be taken into consideration in arriving at his pension. In his article Dr. Lumsden sets out the story very clearly. He has the arguments here, and I do not believe they could be put any better. I warn the government that there will be trouble if they try to get away from their responsibility to give Canadian pensioners a proper pension by providing for some additional payment to a few pensioners based on a means test. It is not good enough for this nation to deal with war pensioners in that way.
As for the war veterans allowance, it has been pointed out by members who have spoken before me that in some provinces an old age pensioner gets considerably more than a recipient of war veterans allowance. That position is so intolerable that a year or two ago the minister's predecessor in office, who is now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), said that he was considering the possibility of making the war veterans allowance larger in some provinces than in others in order that it would be as large as the old age pension.


Mr. Mutch:: Where did he say that?


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Speaker, I must correct my hon. friend. I have never made any such statement at any time at any place.
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: You should withdraw.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The War Veterans Allowance Act being a federal statute, I have always contended that it should never under any circumstances discriminate between one province and another.


Howard Charles Green: I have not the reference here.


Milton Fowler Gregg: You cannot find it anywhere.


Alphonse Fournier: You have got to take the hon. gentleman's word.


Howard Charles Green: If the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will just stick to the business of running the house-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You must take his word.


Howard Charles Green: -and not try to interrupt in this debate-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is business of the house.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Labour certainly dealt with that point and said words to the effect that it might be necessary, that it might be wise, to provide for a larger payment of war veterans allowance in some provinces than in others.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is very seldom that I rise to my feet in this house to interrupt an hon. member. It is very seldom that I rise to refute a statement as to what I have said, but I refute this statement and say without any question of doubt that I never made any such statement anywhere.


Alphonse Fournier: Withdraw.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Withdraw.


Hugues Lapointe: Withdraw.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to leave it to Hansard to prove what he did say.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You must accept his word.


Howard Charles Green: I will not withdraw because I heard it with my own ears.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a certain rule in this house that you have got to accept what an hon. member says, and if he says that he did not say those words the hon. gentleman should withdraw. He knows the rule. He generally follows the rules quite closely except when he threatens the house or the government.


Howard Charles Green: You had better withdraw that.


Alphonse Fournier: You just threatened the government.


Howard Charles Green: I will withdraw until I bring Hansard and quote it to the minister. I think that will prove beyond any doubt exactly what he said.

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee


Alphonse Fournier: You cannot qualify the withdrawal.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) should withdraw his statement. I think he must accept the statement made by the Minister of Labour.


Howard Charles Green: I will accept the statement, Your Honour, and try to prove he was wrong later on. In any event the situation existing in Canada today is that the recipient of war veterans allowance is not getting as much in British Columbia, and several other provinces, as the old age pensioner. That is a condition which should be considered by this committee, and which I would hope would be remedied as a result.
There is one other question. In the references setting up the committees of 1945, 1946 and 1948 we find these words:
. . . legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war . . .
That enabled those committees to consider the plight of the men of the merchant navy and various other groups. I should like to ask the minister to explain whether or not it will be possible for the committee now being set up to consider these questions.
For many years the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), myself and many other members of the house, have been pointing out the unfairness to the men in Canada's merchant navy, by reason of the way in which they have been deprived of benefits which were given to the members of the three other fighting forces. It has been my belief that when a committee was set up it would be possible to consider this question of the merchant navy veterans. I should like to know whether, under the present terms of reference, it will be possible to consider that problem.
I hope the minister will not be too strict in ruling on these questions. Probably he will not be the chairman of the committee. I would expect the chairman to be the parliamentary assistant, so perhaps my appeal should be directed to him. He has been a member of all parliamentary committees on veterans affairs since his election in 1935. I am sure he will appreciate the advantages of trying to co-operate with the other members of the committee on these questions.
While the government have refused to accept this amendment this afternoon, I would appeal to them once again not to be too tough with this committee. I also appeal to the minister to give us some assurance this afternoon before the debate closes that it is

his intention to allow a full and open discussion of all problems concerning the veterans of Canada.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations to make on this resolution. Personally, I am disappointed with the resolution. I was not surprised when the Speaker ruled out of order the amendments that were proposed. As I read this resolution it is designed to do one thing, and that is not to set up a parliamentary committee on veterans affairs as we have understood it in the past with broad terms of reference for examination of all the machinery relating to veterans affairs; it is merely to bring the special forces into the present machinery without making any changes in any of the legislation. In my opinion that is all the resolution is designed to do. If you just read a few words of it, I think you will get that impression.
The resolution states that the committee is to consider a bill to enact the Special Force Veterans Benefit Act, and that is all it is designed to do. It is to bring in a new act that will relate the special forces to the present legislation. The resolution then goes on to define the different phases of legislation to which the special forces will be entitled, that is the Pension Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act, and so on. I hope I am wrong, but if I am right in my interpretation of that resolution, there is no need to set up the committee at all. The terms of the resolution confine the activities of that committee to a scrutiny of the proposed act, and the opening of present legislation in order to bring the special forces within the scope of it. The parliamentary assistant can shake his head, but I am reading English and I am interpreting it as the chairman of the committee is going to interpret it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Oh no, you are not.


Clarence Gillis: The committee will be bound by the terms of reference, and those terms are quite specific, more specific than I have ever seen before. If that is all the committee is designed to do, then no purpose is served by setting up the committee. The government can pass that legislation without setting up the committee.
I want to say that I am glad the minister has proposed a committee. I am glad for this reason. It is going to give the minister an opportunity of meeting a representative group of ex-servicemen in this house. It is going to give that group an opportunity of meeting the minister. We are going to know him better, and he is going to know us better after we are through. In that way, it is going to be of

benefit to both the committee and the minister. I sympathize with the minister. He is new, and perhaps the cabinet and treasury board take advantage of new ministers as they did the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) when they cut off the mail carriers, thus getting him into a lot of trouble. The minister has taken over a large department. There is a lot in it to study, and he has a lot to learn. I believe he has been unfortunate in the loss of a member of his staff who passed away in December. I should like to pay tribute in this house to the late Colonel Doug Macbeth. In the loss of that man to the department the minister has suffered a grievous blow. I worked a bit with him. He was not in the department long, but he was one of the most effective and dynamic workers it has been my privilege to meet. It will be difficult to replace him. The minister has suffered the loss of a very efficient servant who could have advised him on a lot of things. No doubt someone else has taken his place who is almost as efficient. I hope so.
The minister has a tough job ahead of him for the next few months. The Legion is up in arms. I happen to be a member of the Legion, and I have been since it was formed. Any time I am going through the country I visit the Legion branches. I have done that recently, and know what the members are talking about in terms of changes in the legislation. One of the strongest arguments I got at all the branches I visited within the last couple of months concerned the War Veterans Allowance Act. Everyone admits it is a good piece of legislation, but there sure many weak spots in it today which have developed through force of circumstances. If the minister wants to keep on good terms with the Legion, as I think a man in his position has to do because the Legion looks upon the Department of Veterans Affairs as their department, he will study these problems. In the past the Legion has had a lot of confidence in the department and co-operation from it; that is the way we want it. The War Veterans Allowance Act should be included in the terms of reference of this committee, because the means test should be removed. It hurts in many ways. The federal and provincial governments are considering the abolition of the means test for old age pensions. The trend is towards getting away from the means test. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act the permissible earnings are too low. The maximum payment is too low. No one can exist on $40 per month.
There are many young veterans who could be earning something if the means test was not rigidly enforced. Today the Legion branches across the country are adamant on
4, 1951
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee that point. They want that changed, and it should be changed. Another very sore spot is the matter of medical attention for the families of the recipients of war veterans allowance. Ten years ago medical costs in this country were not what they are now. Today many of the veterans on maximum pension have children. They have wives to maintain, and homes; and they are getting enough to eke out a bare existence. If a member of the family is taken ill, or if the wife requires hospitalization, that war veteran is in the position in which he cannot get any medical attention for his family in any way, shape or form, with the price of medicine and hospitalization as it is in this country today. That has been the subject of much discussion in the Legion over the last couple of years. It is a new angle that has crept in because of the rising costs of medical attention. That matter should be discussed at the sittings of this committee and some understanding should be arrived at on it.
Another sore spot is the treatment of the widow of a veteran of this war in the matter of war veterans allowance. There are many cases of veterans of this war whose widows should qualify for war veterans allowance under the widows' section. But when the investigation takes place, the first thing she is faced with is the fact that she is not old enough; she is not fifty-five years of age; she is not incapacitated, but she is living perhaps ten miles out of town in some rural community where there is no possibility of employment, with a family of three or four children on her hands to look after. There is no income but she cannot receive that war veterans allowance because she is not incapacitated and she is not fifty-five years of age. There is case after case like that. I have had cases brought to my attention where the man died in the permanent force, where his superannuation was passed back to the widow, and over $600 was deducted from it by way of income tax, a second deduction for tax purposes out of that amount of money. That is a recent case and it has been before the veterans affairs committee. I brought it to the attention of the committee on national defence. That widow is out there. She has no income. She has a family. She is tied to her home. But she cannot receive pension by way of disability pension and she cannot receive a pension under the War Veterans Allowance Act. That act should be changed so that, where there are extenuating circumstances such as those I have mentioned, the commission should have some administrative latitude in handling the case, instead cf there being the rigid application of the act that there is today. It is not the commission's

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee fault. That is the way the act is written. It should be softened up. I do not say that it should be opened up wide, but some administrative latitude should be given to the commission. That is another adjustment of the War Veterans Allowance Act that is necessary; and I am giving it to you, Mr. Speaker, as I got it from members of the branches of the Legion.
There is another spot where the act requires amendment. We amended the War Veterans Allowance Act to include imperial veterans who had residence of twenty years in Canada. That was all to the good. You find that many of those veterans had passed away when they were eighteen years here or sixteen years here, but their widows are here. We did not broaden the scope of the act to provide for the widow. It is applicable only if the veteran is alive and himself receives the veterans allowance. There are many veterans' widows across this country in that position, where the husband did not complete twenty years' residence here and the widow therefore is not entitled to the war veterans allowance. The act requires amendment there.
All of these things that I am talking about are sore spots. A change in the act to cure the sore spots would not cost a great deal of money. They are borderline cases in many instances. But that act requires amendment in these respects. There are other odds and ends that should be cleaned up also. If the War Veterans Allowance Act is excluded from the terms of reference of this committee, then we are not going to talk about it; and when the Legion finds that out, they are going to be quite sore about it.
Another act that is excluded from the terms of reference of the committee is the Veterans Land Act. That act requires amendment. I am going to refer to it as it pertains to my part of the country, and the hardship that it creates there for veterans. One of the best features of the Veterans Land Act was the small holdings section which enabled a veteran to get a home at a reasonable cost, provided he could get three acres of land in some instances, and down to two acres under certain circumstances. This is a problem that pertains to Nova Scotia and it may also pertain to Alberta and to some sections of British Columbia.
The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation have all of the minerals of Nova Scotia leased for ninety-nine years. That means that everything under the ground-no matter where you may go in that province, where there are minerals-belongs to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. When a veteran makes application under the Veterans Land Act, it has been administered in this way.


The coal company will not issue a warranty deed. The minister will remember this case because I brought it out. In the early days of applying the Veterans Land Act in that province, the director at that time counselled his advisers in the offices in the various communities that, where the building was erected on land that a veteran was taking over under the small holdings section, that type of deed would be all right to accept. The counsellors in the offices counselled the veteran along those lines. In many cases that type of deed was accepted. He also issued the declaration that no land for new construction should be purchased with that reservation in that deed.
I ran into this difficulty a few months ago in connection with several veterans who had taken over a nice property and made their application, had put their credits into it for the down payment and thought they were getting a nice home at a reasonable cost. All of a sudden they were notified by the veterans affairs department that they cannot accept that deed from the coal company with that reservation in it, despite the fact that in many cases deeds of that type were accepted under similar circumstances. I got in touch with the minister. The minister checked with his department, and I hope he is still carrying on an investigation into this matter. I also checked with the head of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, and received much good advice and co-operation from him. He did what he could. It is a legal matter. It is a matter that is in the hands of his legal officials. The matter of subsidence of property all through the area is something that is widespread from the general standpoint, and he was reluctant to do much about it. The only hope is with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In view of the fact that there are not many cases, and there will not be many cases, because the land is not available in those communities-they are quite large communities-in those few cases the department might accept that deed with that reservation in it relieving the company from the responsibility for subsidence. That sounds complicated but there is nothing to it. But under the present legislation the officials of the department are obliged to take that stand. If the Veterans Land Act was before the committee, we might be able to get an amendment in there to effect a softening up of it, and to provide for administrative latitude.
In all of this legislation I have always felt that the real test of its value is in the administration. If you are going to tie the hands completely of those who administer the legislation, to me it presupposes that you have not much confidence in the people you

pick to administer it. Cases such as these cause all of the little irritations. The general application of the legislation is all right; there is not much wrong with the basic legislation. It is in connection with these borderline cases, where the administration has no latitude to make a decision but must be bound rigidly by the terms of the act, that most of the difficulty is caused. If this Veterans Land Act does not go before this committee, nothing is going to be done about it. If the War Veterans Allowance Act is not going before the committee, nothing is going to be done to remedy the points of irritation that I have mentioned.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made a rather startling prediction a few moments ago. He said that in his opinion, and he would gather from the opinion expressed by Dr. Lumsden, the first vice-president of the Legion, it was the intention of the government to establish a means test in the disability pension. Before this discussion closes I hope that the minister will rise in his place in the house and say that that is not so. It has never been so. A disability pension is based on a disability assessed by medical authorities, and regardless of what you may earn on the side despite your handicap, it never interfered with the assessment of the disability from the medical point of view. If there is any intention or any suggestion on the part of the government to institute a means test in disability pensions when the general trend from one end of this country to the other is to eliminate means tests and free people so that they may contribute something to the pool of wealth by way of supplementary earnings, then I think it is a pretty bad attitude. I never suspected that. I read the article to which the hon. member referred but I did not get that impression.
I would not want the press of this country to carry a statement from this house that it was the intention of the government at this time to establish a means test in disability pensions. I am not going to say any more. There are many things I could say but I will reserve them for the committee. There is no use talking about them here. But I am going to say before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, that if the terms of reference of this committee, as I read them, are accurate, that it is the intention of the government only to open the present acts without any amendments to them other than to relate the special force to them, then we are wasting our time in setting up a committee, because that could very well be done in this house through the medium of the Canadian Forces
4, 1951
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee Act and not waste a lot of time in oommittee arguing over things that we cannot do anything about.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words before the minister apparently concludes the debate on this resolution. I am one who is very pleased indeed that this resolution is before the house, and that the requests of the Legion and of many members of this house throughout recent years, and of a good percentage of the public, have been met by the introduction of this resolution to establish this committee.
I was a member of the special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs of 1945, 1946 and 1948, and as a member of those committees I fully appreciate the work that has been done and realize the work that can be done by this committee at this time in the interests of veterans of this country.
Before proceeding to the few questions I want to raise I do want at this time, Mr. Speaker, to pay a tribute to the memory of the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie who throughout the years took a great interest in and worked for the interests of veterans across Canada. The culminating effort of his work was I think demonstrated in the final drafting of the veterans charter, which has meant so much to veterans across this country.
I quite agree with the comments of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) who said that our veterans legislation on the whole compares favourably with any veterans legislation in the world. While the veterans charter, at the time it was drafted and completed, was generally satisfactory so far as veterans, veterans organizations and the members of this house were concerned, changing circumstances and changing conditions have made it necessary to review considerable portions of that legislation at this time.
I am quite in agreement with hon. members who have previously spoken, in their comments that the terms of this resolution are not wide enough. I wish it covered the legislation that was mentioned by previous speakers. I think, Mr. Speaker, that evidence of that is found in the excellent brief presented to the cabinet of this country on November 10 last by the representatives of the Canadian Legion. I think all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the Legion has always given thorough consideration to these questions, and its representations have always been of a practical, of a sound, and of a common-sense nature. I think a reading of this brief indicates that the Legion has continued that policy.
1636	HOUSE OF
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee The brief presented urged generally a 33 J per cent increase in disability pensions, an increase in widows pensions, an extra provision for dependent children, and it also asked the government to give some consideration to the question of educational training for the dependent children of veterans. They also asked for an increase in the war veterans allowance to $50 per month for a single man and $100 a month for married men.
I am not going to deal with the details of these proposals or the arguments presented; we shall have ample opportunity to do that in the special committee; but I do think that the terms of the resolution should have been wider. Without question the position of the veterans of this country who are drawing the war veterans allowance at the present time demands that consideration be given to the Legion's proposals in this respect.
I believe the committee should have been instructed to review the Veterans Land Act, because the conditions that exist today are very different from the conditions that existed five years ago or even three years ago. Personally, from my experience and my close association with the Legion and the veterans of my constituency, I find a very general need for an increase in the basic loan for veterans intending to purchase farms or to build homes under the small holdings sections of the Veterans Land Act. I have come to that conclusion after giving quite close attention to the question. In my constituency that need is very urgent.
I have had resolutions from various branches of the Legion, and resolutions from the zone council, pointing out that $6,000 is not a sufficient amount for a person to build a house at the present time or to purchase property of any size, even under our conditions. In that connection I should like to read the resolution with respect to the particular demand in my constituency for the development of small holdings.
We have a large number of veterans working in the industrial plants of Kootenay West who so far, owing to the terms of the act and to the regulations associated with the act, have been denied the opportunity to build under small holdings. For the information of the minister I might say that the constituency I represent has had the highest per capita income in Canada. The only other constituency, according to the records I have perused, having a higher per capita income than Kootenay West is Westmount near Montreal for the year 1948.


Mr. Gibson:: Unearned income.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Earned income. Therefoie there is no finer security existing in Canada 

for loans made to veterans employed by the big corporations in my constituency who desire to build houses and make their permanent residence there. Owing to the present regulations many of these veterans have been denied that opportunity. Veterans generally, and the Legion in my constituency, are very dissatisfied with the, shall I say, production today under the terms of the Veterans Land Act, particularly with regard to the development of possibilities for small holdings.
In that connection I want to read a resolution that I received just a few days ago from the zone council of the Canadian Legion in my constituency, endorsed by every branch present:
Whereas we appreciate the value of the present settlement under the small holding section of the Veterans Land1 Act;
And whereas, owing to the rapid industrial development in west Kootenay, and subsequent demand for small holdings;
And whereas, the Kootenay climate, soil, rainfall, and topography, are different to the coast, Okanagan, and northern British Columbia;
And whereas, the present system of administration from Kelowna causes very serious delay in servicing applications;
And whereas, many potential sites are undeveloped, needing only a water system installed;
And whereas, a smaller acreage than the present three acres would be more practical in some areas.
Therefore be it resolved:
(1)	That the regional office be re-established at Nelson, B.C., for east and west Kootenay.
(2)	That a survey be made of potential developments, sub-divisions, and water system development where these would make additional land available.
(3)	That the acreage required for a small holding be reduced to suit the area.
That resolution was drafted after serious consideration of the whole situation by a special committee appointed to deal with it-not just a few men gathered together to air their grievances, without consideration of all the facts. These were men who were studying the question of local conditions and the needs of veterans concerned.
I point to that as one illustration of the need for a review of the Veterans Land Act, with a view to increasing the basic grant and changing the regulations in so far as the acreage of small holdings is concerned.
I wish the committee had been empowered and instructed to deal with the Legion's request for educational opportunities for dependent children. However, I shall not say any more about that at the present time, I do want to deal with one more question that has been brought to my attention in recent months, when I have come across many cases of older veterans who are not satisfactorily served by the legislation or who wish to continue working because they have

obligations and responsibilities that cannot be met by accepting the war veterans allowance, or things of that kind.
The question of the employment of older veterans is a very serious one, and one which in my opinion should have been referred to the committee. Manpower requirements in Canada at the present time demand that we use the services of every person who is willing and able to work. I understand that the Department of Labour has a branch in which there are officials endeavouring to find employment, particularly for older people, including veterans. It would include, for instance, the age group between fifty and sixty-five.
The government of this country is spending money in that connection. It has in its employ people who are paying particular attention to that problem. When it comes to the civil service, we find that, in connection with the reductions proposed, the policy of the government is to pay particular attention to the older civil servants, to have regard for their needs and, if they have to be displaced, to find employment for them. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a special branch which has been trying to persuade employers to employ a greater number of veterans between the ages of fifty and sixty-five. These are older veterans who are willing and anxious to work.
What do we find? I shall take time to give only two illustrations. Right in this building there is an older veteran who has been employed for twenty-two years as a messenger. He had four years' service in the 72nd battalion, and served in the first world war in Canada, England, France and Belgium. His present age is seventy. This man is vigorous, active and anxious to work. He is retired on a superannuation allowance of $48 a month, and draws a disability of $17 a month, making a total income of $65 a month.
Out of that $65 he has to maintain his wife, who is ill, which costs him $35 a month. That leaves the veteran in question with a balance of $30 on which he must live. Here is a veteran, fit and anxious to work, but who cannot live on $30 a month. He cannot receive the war veterans allowance in view of the income he receives. That man has been turned out of this building, although he is quite capable of carrying on as a messenger and doing the work he would be required to do. He is tramping the streets of Ottawa looking for a job, at a time when in Canada we need manpower.
I bring that to the attention of the minister and the house. Then I would turn to a case in my own constituency. As the result of 80709-105
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee instructions given recently to all departments, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in common with other government departments, had to lower its staff. Throughout the country, wherever it was considered possible, there have been reductions in staff.
In the Kootenays we have had three field men representing the Veterans Land Act administration. They have been covering an area in which there are about 80,000 people. In the office at Nelson there were three excellent and capable veterans who had been servicing the whole area. The question of economy has arisen and, in its wisdom, the Veterans Land Act administration has decided that one of the three must go. With that in mind they have chosen the oldest veteran, a veteran of two world wars, and the senior man from point of service in the interior of British Columbia. He is a man with long residence in that interior section and one who has had excellent relations with the veterans he has served through the years. This man is well liked by the veterans; he has been a most efficient official, and has done a good job for the Veterans Land Act administration. The department has paid tribute to his ability.
Here we have the Department of Veterans Affairs urging employers to retain the services of older men, while at the same time the Veterans Land Act administration in this instance disposes of its oldest and most experienced man. They put him out at an age when it is most difficult for him to get back into civilian life or to find another job.
This situation is so unjust and is so in opposition to the governments major policy, and the policy of the veterans affairs administration, that every branch of the Legion in my constituency has protested to the director of the Veterans Land Act administration. They have also sent letters and telegrams to me. The veterans in my constituency are deeply concerned about this situation, because it seems so much in contradiction to the announced policy of the government.
In my view if the Veterans Land Act is reviewed, if some of its terms are changed and if the regulations were changed so as to lower the acreage for small holdings, the three men could not do all the work required in the Kootenays to provide small holdings and farms for the veterans requiring them. In the district surrounding Nelson and Trail, in that new mine being developed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Riondel, all that is needed is a push in order to have a big development at all points. First of all there would have to be a change
1638	HOUSE OF
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee in the regulations, and then a little more push, and I am sure the three men we have there could do the job.
This older veteran has been dismissed. First of all he was asked to tender his resignation, but after his long service with the department he refused to do so. Finally he received a curt notice of dismissal from the office at Vancouver.
The result is that we are left with two men to cover the whole of the area of the Kootenays, with a total population of 80,000, and with the greatest demand for small holdings of any place in Canada, having in mind the population and the circumstances. The department has said that they will do what they can to see if they can get him a job somewhere else. He is in that age group where it is most difficult to get a job.
The Nelson office has been closed except that it is to be open on Saturdays. This means that in the whole area there will be a Veterans Land Act administration office open only for a few hours a week during which time veterans will be able to make applications and so on. This creates a most inconvenient situation because many veterans have to come 50, 60 or even 150 miles in order to see the person in charge of the office. These shorter hours will simply mean greater expense for the veterans who will have to fit their own time to the hours when the office is open.
I greatly appreciate the co-operation given by officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As I have said before, the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the officials have been most co-operative with members of the house and have done an excellent job. I am particularly concerned about the employment of older veterans, and particularly about the dismissal of this older veteran from the Nelson office of the Veterans Land Act administration. There is a great demand for small holdings in my district which is not being met today. I hope the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the officials concerned will really review that situation to see if something cannot be done to correct it. I know in saying this I have the unanimous support of every Legion branch in my constituency.
In conclusion, may I say that I look forward again to serving on this committee with comrades representing all the other parties. I trust 'that when the findings of the committee are presented to this house there will follow amendments to the legislation that will prove that the members of the veterans affairs committee have once again had an opportunity to serve the veterans of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, earlier in the debate I made a statement to the effect that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) had stated in the house when he was Minister of Veterans Affairs that he would like to see the war veterans allowance in each province brought up to the amount of the old age pension paid in that province. The minister denied that he had made any such statement and I was eventually compelled to withdraw. I have here Hansard of Tuesday, June 6, 1950. At that time I had raised this very question, I believe on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the minister is reported on page 3294 as having said:
When social security for the aged is worked out on behalf of all our people, then, whether it is five years or ten years, whatever it might be, I hope that the amount of the war veterans allowance going to the veteran in each of the provinces, in that period between 60 and 70 we shall say, will be the same as it would be for all the people after the age of 70. In other words, in my own province-
That is New Brunswick.
-at the present time the war veterans allowance between 60 and 70 is almost exactly the same as the old age pension for the rest of the people from 70 until death. In my hon. friend's province,-
That would be British Columbia.
-for 75 per cent of the recipients, the war veterans allowance has been augmented to bring it up to $50 per month as a sort of cost of living bonus.
Then follow the words to which I have particular reference:
I should like to see the time when the veterans of the various provinces will receive the same as the residents of those provinces are receiving under the old age pension. Now, it is going to take a lot of planning to work that out, but in reality that is the real reason why I would rather see hardship overcome during these two years by this patchwork method, if you will, rather than by making an over-all increase from the eastern border of Saskatchewan to Newfoundland inclusive, which would bring the war veterans allowance, from 60 until death, ten dollars higher than the old age pension from 70 until death for the rest of the population.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am grateful to my hon. friend for reading the extract, for there is nothing in it to indicate that I, as a former Minister of Veterans Affairs, stated that I hoped that the war veterans allowance might be payable, for instance, in New Brunswick, at the rate of $30 per month and in British Columbia at $50 per month. There is nothing in the statement to indicate that I wished that there should be any variation in the rate of war veterans allowances in one province as compared with another. It will be seen that the expression there was based upon a hope that if, say, $40 per month was paid from the federal treasury to all people throughout

Canada over 70 years of age, then that an equal amount might be payable to veterans under the war veterans allowance in all provinces of Canada in exactly the same way.


Howard Charles Green: The statement speaks for itself.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The statement speaks for itself.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in closing the debate on this resolution to touch on all the points that have been raised by hon. members. I think it will be agreed that most of those matters will be dealt with more adequately, either in committee or when other legislation or the estimates are before the house.
Reference has been made to the necessity of having a standing committee on veterans affairs. If one goes over the history of veterans legislation enacted during the last 25 or 30 years it will be found that a veterans affairs committee has been constituted each time major changes have been made in the legislation, or when new legislation was introduced.
Reference has also been made during this debate to the terms of reference of the committee. I cannot subscribe to the statement that has been made that in the past the terms of reference setting up similar committees have always been much wider. In fact that is the case for the committees set up in 1945 and 1946. But in 1948 the terms of reference for the committee set up then were more restricted than in 1945 and 1946. My hon. friend who quoted the terms of reference in 1948 will notice that in that year there was no mention of the War Veterans Allowance Act. It will be found that in the past committees have been set up to consider only one specific act or amendment.
I think the house will agree that the years 1945 and 1946 were different. At that time we were bringing before the committee all the legislation which had been created during the war and immediately following the war in the form of orders in council. If I am not mistaken, I believe there were practically eighty-nine orders in council which were placed on the table of the committee to be considered, along with legislation which had been implemented since 1921.
That is not the case now. We are making the terms of reference wide enough to cover all legislation which is considered necessary at this time as well as any other legislation which the government may find it necessary to introduce before the end of this session.
80709-105J
Veterans Affairs-Special Committee
I should like to touch upon one other point, the interpretation given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) to the terms of reference. The hon. member said that he understood that the committee would be permitted to consider only legislation that affected the veterans of the special force. That is not the case, as one can readily see by reading the terms of reference. The hon. [DOT]member, along with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), referred to the new unemployability supplement as being an introduction of a means test into the Pension Act. I tried to make it clear, although it is quite possible I did not, but if the hon. member will read Hansard he will find that it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Pension Act. It is not done under the authority of the Pension Act but under the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. There has never been and there is no intention now of introducing any means test in the Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to modify its application with reference to the last quarter of the year 1950 and to extend the application of the act in a modified form to the year 1951.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. In his absence possibly one of the other members of the cabinet might bring it to his attention. Press dispatches today indicate that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has decided to drop the Fraserview project in Vancouver, to stop any further construction, and also to dispose of some 200 lots which have been serviced with

Veterans Affairs-Special Committee water, sewers and roadways but upon which no buildings have been erected. Could we have a statement tomorrow as to whether or not that is correct, and perhaps outlining the present position of the project?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly call the minister's attention to the question put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I do not think the minister can make a statement tomorrow as I believe he will be out of town. Probably he could make it on Friday.


Howard Charles Green: As a matter of fact I spoke to him this morning and he promised to make a statement about it as soon as he could secure the information.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know if my promise is good but I will transmit the question to the minister.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago I made a request for the production of certain papers from the Post Office Department. An order for return was passed the next day but no production has been made yet.
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
Works): I will do my best to hasten the production of these papers.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



YUKON ACT


Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of Bill No. 188, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of Bill No. 189, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I announced that I would move to go into supply and call four different departments. I understand that some members wish to speak and I dare not make that motion at the present time. It would have no object and it would give them a chance to air their grievances for only two or three minutes. If I have the unanimous consent of the house that there will be no discussion I would move to go into supply. If there is not unanimous consent-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Go ahead and move it.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


Alphonse Fournier: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I move the adjournment of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned until Thursday, April 5, at 5.30 p.m.

Thursday, April 5, 1951